View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 9, 2015


1.      Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.


2.       Pledge of Allegiance


3.      Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe noted the amended agenda for tonight's meeting, provided as a bench handout, removing Business Action Item. 14.b clarifying requirements as part of the process that a seven-day period was needed between the public hearing and formal action on the proposed cable franchise ordinance. 


City Manager Trudgeon noted staff's request to remove Business Action Item 14.b (abatement - from bench handout agenda) as  the work had been completed today, and unresolved City Code violations resolved.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.


                                      Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


4.       Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak. 


5.      Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe noted the launch of "Speak Up, Roseville" and briefly described this additional website and link from the City's website as another opportunity to receive public input.  Mayor Roe advised that questions could be addressed to the City's Communications Manager Garry Bowman at 651/792-7027 or online.


Mayor Roe announced upcoming mental health and/or substance abuse training sponsored by the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon effort, and hosted by the National Association for Mental Illness (NAMI) organization, with the November event specifically focused on military members, families and caregivers.


6.       Recognitions, Donations and Communications


7.      Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions from Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.


a.            Approve October 19, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes

Councilmember McGehee submitted her requested corrections as a bench handout; with those corrections to the October 19, 2015 meeting minutes accepted as presented, with the exception of that correction on page 21, line 40 previously corrected in Mayor Roe's submittal.  Also, the proposed correction from Councilmember McGehee (page 12, line 30) was actually noted to be a correction to line 20).


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the October 19, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Page 10, Lin 13 (Etten)

Typographical correction: change to read "a 70-80" hour work week

·         Page 12, Lin 20 (McGehee)

Change to read: "problem in allowing them to continue[ing] as [they have been] [such].  While not having any"

·         Page 21, Lin 40 (Roe)

·         In addition to Mayor Roe's previously submitted corrections, delete "suggested to" from the sentence.

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve October 26, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes

Councilmember McGehee submitted her requested corrections as a bench handout; with those corrections to the October 26, 2015 meeting minutes accepted as presented by Councilmember McGehee.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the October 26, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Page 4, Line 3 (Laliberte)

Delete Councilmember Laliberte's name from the roll call vote.

·         Page 18, Line 39 (Willmus)

Typographical correction: change "nuisance" to "noise" ordinance.

·         Page 23, Lines 40-42 (Roe)

Delete entire "Motor Vehicle Rental/Leasing" paragraph.

·         Page 24, Lines 1-3 (Roe)

In addition to Mayor Roe's previously submitted corrections, correct to read: "Without objection this use was changed from C to NP in the CMU-1 district."

·         Page 24, Lines 31-32 (Roe)

Correct to read: "Without objection, the Table was revised to show C in the CMU-1 district."

·         Page 25, Line 8 (Roe)

Typographical correction: End sentence with "CMU-1 District)" and delete extraneous numbers/letters.

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Laliberte.

Motion carried.


8.       Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated November 9, 2015.


a.            Approve Payments

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.


ACH Payments







                   Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted.


                                      Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


c.            Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated October 31, 2015.


                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Approve Twin Lakes Area East Collector Improvements Preliminary Design Professional Services Contract (City Project #16-11)

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, award of a professional services contract (Attachment B) with SFR Consulting Group for the Twin Lakes Area East Collector Improvements Preliminary Design (City Project #16-11) in an amount not to exceed $80,182; and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.

                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


e.      Approve Twin Lakes Area Traffic Signals Professional Services Contract (City Project #16-12)

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, award of a professional services contract (Attachment B) with SFR Consulting Group for the Twin Lakes Area Traffic Signals (City Project #16-12) in an amount not to exceed $49,951; and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.


                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


f.         Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed and Authorize Final Payment on the Fairview Pathway Project (a/k/a Northeast Suburban Campus Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project) - Phase II

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11266 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - Fairview Pathway Project (Northeast Suburban Campus Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project) "Phase II;" and authorizing final payment.


Councilmember Laliberte noted in Phase I of this project, there was an additional agreement needed to address Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, causing her to question if that was the same case with Phase II and why Ramsey County, the City and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) are not in concert with those standards.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director Mark Culver responded that there had been a number of issues and changes industry-wide with ADA changes for pedestrian ramp design, including truncated domes and slope and landing pad requirements.  While not having been in Roseville at the time of Phase I, Mr. Culver stated his understanding in the delay at that time was simply a need to update the specifications to meet newly-adopted MnDot standards as required by federally funded project dollars. 


However, Mr. Culver reported that all agencies and jurisdictions were now up-to-date and using the same standards; advising that it was standard practice for the City to update all pedestrian ramps on city projects, but at the time of Phase I all local agencies had not yet adopted MnDOT standards.


                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


g.      Authorize Use of HGACBuy Program for Purchase of New Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to utilize the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC)Buy Program for purchase of the replacement of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA's).


For future reference, Councilmember McGehee pointed out that this would involve a sizable expense for the City while at the same time the Fire Department was moving to all  full time staff requiring fewer turnout gear and apparatus set upgrades versus the current needs for forty paid-on-call firefighters.


                              Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


h.       Confirm Acquisition of Properties located at County Road C and Victoria Street and Disposal of Property located at 2668 Lexington Avenue are Consistent with Roseville Comprehensive Plan

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, receipt of the report and findings of the Planning Commission that the proposed acquisition of subject parcels at County Road C and Victoria Street and disposal of subject parcels at 2668 Lexington Avenue are in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.


                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


i.             Certify Unpaid and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11267 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."


                   Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


9.        Consider Items Removed from Consent


10.      General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Approve 2016 Fee Schedule

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the recommended adjustments to existing fees, as well as establishment of several new fees as detailed in the RCA and the Draft 2016 Fee Schedule (Attachment C) dated November 9, 2015.  Mr. Miller advised that city staff overseeing these specific functions were available in the audience to describe any fees in more detail beyond that included in the RCA and at request of the City Council.


Rental Registration (Housing) (d) - (Page 3 of Attachment C)

Councilmember Willmus noted that the rental registration fee for a typical single-family home was increasing from $25 to $35 annually, with a footnote regarding the rationale for the increase due to technology fees.


Community Development Director Paul Bilotta advised that a 2% software fee was being added for all permits, noting that some of that increase was included in the fee itself rather than showing as a separate line item (e.g. building permits).


Councilmember Willmus expressed concern regarding increasing fees, noting that when the rental registration process had been initiated, it was intended that the registration of single-family rentals was of benefit for the City in knowing the location of those rentals.  However, Councilmember Willmus cautioned raising the fee incrementally and inadvertently dissuading homeowners/landlords renting those single-family homes to register by making it cost-prohibitive for them to do so.


Outdoor Storage/Display Permits - Outdoor Temporary Events (page 14)

Councilmember Willmus questioned how and if this affected a local hardware store and their Christmas tree sales fee.


Community Development Director Bilotta responded that changes have evolved in outdoor displays over the last year with some locations having 11-12 occurrences per year, with staff still having to inspect each site for each occurrence.  If a tent is involved, Mr. Bilotta noted that the Fire Chief also inspected them.  Therefore, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was recommending the proposed fee schedule for those occurrences less than 10, but if staff was required to inspect additional occurrences as listed, costs would increase accordingly as noted. For the benefit of the City Council and the public, Mr. Bilotta clarified that this referred to days, not just occurrences, but addressing multiple sales throughout the year. 


Mayor Roe sought further clarification that staff was not recommending adding Christmas tree sales/registration as a separate type of fee back into the fee schedule.


City Manager Trudgeon and Community Development Director Bilotta both confirmed Mayor Roe's understanding.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of this recommendation to address the number of occurrences.


Councilmember Etten also spoke in support of the recommendation, opining that 1-5 occurrences addressed the needs of most businesses in Roseville, and may actually lower costs for those businesses.


Councilmember McGehee asked staff for an estimate on the number of rental inspections staff performed.


Mr. Bilotta responded that he estimated 600-700 registrations for single-family rentals annually; with Mayor Roe clarifying that this involved registrations only, not inspections.


Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (Page 10)

Councilmember Etten noted the fee schedule, and text for "Plan Review Fee" following it, and references to $7,000 and then $15,000 in parentheses after that, seeking to make sure they were in agreement.


Multi-Family Rental Licensing Appeals to City Council (page 11)

Councilmember Etten sought staff's rationale to charge for an appeal, whether based on staff time or how defined; and if it was consistent with other appeal fees.


Community Development Director Bilotta noted there was currently no fee for rental licensing appeals, and only one appeal had been received to-date.  However, as staff went through the process for just that one appeal earlier this summer, Mr. Bilotta reported that it resulted in a considerable amount of work, with no fee to apply to that additional staff time.  Therefore, Mr. Bilotta noted it was being brought forward for the City Council's consideration unless they preferred to leave it without a fee.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta clarified that some appeal processes were subject to fees, while others currently were not.

Councilmember Etten questioned the rationale in asking a multi-family rental owner to pay for the registration/inspection process, and then to pay if they choose to appeal the program.


Mayor Roe suggested that the appeal purpose was intended as the landlord/owner stating that he didn't agree with the classification; and admitted he wasn't sure he philosophically disagreed with assigning a fee to appeal.


Other than those items noted, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of staff's recommendations as presented.


By consensus, Councilmembers agreed that the leaf collection fee should be removed due to discontinuation of that program in 2016.


Public Comment

Roger Hess, Jr., 1906 Wagner Place

Since fees are supposed to be based on actual city expense, Mr. Hess opined that it would be nice if those calculations were included so the public could be aware of how fees are developed, and presented along with the fee schedule itself or in some form of documentation.  Without that information available, Mr. Hess opined that fees could be perceived as arbitrary.


Mr. Hess questioned some of the fees included for insignificant things (e.g. gas pumps, pool tables) which seemed to create a small expense for staff and the city to monitor. However, Mr. Hess noted the considerable expense generated by big box retail and suggested an associated fee be applied to those situations if the intent was to have fees correspond to expenses.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Hess for his suggestions.


City Council Discussion

In response to Mr. Hess' suggestion to provide transparency to the public on the rationale for fees and adjustment of those fees, Mayor Roe noted that some fees were dictated by state statute, and that could provide useful information going forward as well in providing rationale.


Water Meter Program Fees (Page 12)

Mayor Roe referenced an email provided to the City Council by Public Works Director Culver last week related to water meter reading fees; and addressing Councilmember Willmus' questions on a fee recommended by staff for denial of access to water meters.


Mr. Culver responded that the intent with this fee is to dissuade properties in Roseville that, for various reasons, were not accessible to staff to read the water meter.  At this time, Mr. Culver reported that the only current method available is to shut off water services to those properties, and noted staff's hesitancy to do so depending on the time or year, weather, or other circumstances in a particular home.  Mr. Culver stated that the proposed fee for denying that access was intended to somehow incent those property owners to provide that access other than shutting off their water service.  Mr. Culver provided several examples of these situations, including a meter built into a wall or behind something that didn't allow staff access, with the homeowner nonchalant in their concern about this lack of access leaving staff without any means to incent them to allow access to the meter.


Multi-Family Rental Licensing - Appeal to Council Fee (Page 11)

As brought forward by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember McGehee stated she could see both sides, agreeing with her colleague as well as staff's rationale.


As part of the discussion on fees for appeals, Councilmembers and staff considered appeals for other situations (e.g. variance appeals - page 15); the amount of staff and City Attorney time that may apply depending on their technicality through that appeal process; and the potential that the appeal process may be undertaken every six months for the rental inspection process as scheduled, and could involve multiple challenges. 


Specific to the multi-family rental licensing appeal, Mr. Bilotta advised that if the appeal was tied to the actual amount of work involved by staff, the fee may be as high as $400 to $500, depending on the number of challenges, and staff needing to pull various sections of code for reference, and/or involving review by other agencies to determine if staff's interpretation is correct.  Under those circumstances, Mr. Bilotta stated it was staff's belief that a $50 appeal fee was more than fair.


Given staff's additional comments, Councilmember Etten proposed no change in staff's recommendation; and the recommended fee was supported by consensus.


Dog/Cat Licenses (page 1)

Regarding the fee structure for 2-year versus lifetime licenses, Councilmember Willmus reiterated the concerns he'd initially expressed, when the intent is pet owners to register and provide documentation of vaccinations.  However, with these fees, remaining the same in 2015 to 2016, Councilmember Willmus opined that they were cost-prohibitive and questioned if they were serving the intent for public safety and welfare with the current fee structure.


Mayor Roe spoke to the structure of the fees, with cost savings for sterilized and micro-chipped pets as the least expensive approach for a pet owner, opining that a $5 fee for a two-year or lifetime, sterilized and micro chipped pet shouldn't be an impediment other than the cost for having those veterinary services performed.  Mayor Roe clarified the city was not attempting to do other than incent pet owners to provide sterilization and micro-chipping, with the lifetime fees ultimately costing less over the life of a pet than the incremental two-year fees, even for non-sterilized or micro-chipped pets.


Councilmember Willmus questioned the cost to the city for a lifetime license.


Mayor Roe opined that the lifetime license was still less expensive than  multiple two-year licenses, based on past discussion, the intent of the fee was not necessarily to cover the cost but rather to encourage sterilization and micro-chipping pets for the health, welfare of and cost to the community in general. Mayor Roe noted that the fees he had not been changed since their implementation in 2008 and had not been made aware of any responses that the fees were problematic.


Mr. Miller indicated that he had not received any negative responses on the dog and cat license fees at the staff level either.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her agreement in principle with Councilmember Willmus, but noted there was a cost to the community to consider as well.


Councilmember Willmus provided his rationale in raising the question whether  it was more appropriate that the city was further serving the public interest for health, safety and welfare by knowing animals are vaccinated or if the fee was seen as a punitive approach for someone not choosing to alter their pet.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the health and safety aspect, from his perspective, would impact that.


To advocate the opposite side, Mayor Roe noted that the question of the health and safety of animals was also part of the picture in addressing their exposure in the community, additional strays to deal with, and litters of animals outside the system and creating additional problems in the community as well as negatively affecting those animals.  Mayor Roe noted that some fees may not provide known costs, but could also be applied to dissuade other less desirable actions as well.


A brief discussion was held on licensing for horses (page 2) with city code still having provision for horses in Roseville depending on acreage, and potential interests of some citizens in an equestrian amenity.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1484 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2016 Fee Schedule;" amended as follows:

·         Remove leaf pick-up fee due to discontinuation of that program

·   Correct discrepancy amount between $7,000 and $15,000 as noted by Councilmember Etten

                             Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1484 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Summary Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2016 Fee Schedule."


                             Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


For the record, City Manager Trudgeon apologized for not having page and/or line numbering on the draft fee schedule; but clarified that they had been provided by Finance Director Miller in his submission but were apparently lost somewhere in the translation.


b.            Consider Adoption of Ordinance Regarding Wildlife Management in Roseville

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized changes made by staff since the last discussion, based on City Council direction and public comment, as detailed in the RCA dated November 9, 2015.  Mr. Trudgeon further noted the draft "Deer Population Management Program and Policy" also updated based on that direction.


Councilmember Etten thanked staff for the detail they put into this, and their responses to the City Council and community, opining he found it well put together.


Councilmember McGehee, even though an opponent, seconded those comments, and expressed appreciation for staff's clarity and the revisions made.

Public Comment

Written comment was received via email from Jane & Bob Spartz, 649 Heinel Drive, provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, in support of managing the deer population.


Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace Court

Mr. Toogood expressed his personal appreciation to the City Council as well as the appreciation of the fifty-plus residents having called him over the last three years seeking this resolution.  Mr. Toogood thanked the City Council and staff for their work, along with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke and the Commission for their work; and asked that the City Council pass the ordinance and management plan as presented.


Roger Hess, Jr., 1906 Wagner Place

While it may be too late in the process, Mr. Hess suggested the City Council consider in the future, rather than hunting deer, finding a wooded area to capture and fence in deer for feeding them versus disposing of them.  Mr. Hess suggested a "Friends of the Deer" program, referencing an example in the City of Hutchinson, MN as another potential city amenity.


Mayor Roe suggested one minor language revision to the draft Ordinance (Attachment B) - page 1, line 22 to change "unwanted" to "undesirable."


By consensus, this recommended language revision was supported by the council.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1485 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Creating Title 4, Chapter 411, An Ordinance Relating to the Management of Wildlife in the City;" amended to revise page 1, line 22 from "unwanted" to "undesirable" concentrations of wild animals" and a typographical correction (line 37 - Laliberte) to remove the duplicate word "in."

Mayor Roe echoed the statements made by his colleagues and during public comment, commending staff for the process having proceeded in a respectful manner from those on both sides of the issue.  Mayor Roe expressed his hope that the ordinance and plan/policy would work out well for the community while also maintaining the health of the local deer population rather than creating an unhealthy situation for them.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe clarified rationale in retaining Section 503.10 (Use of Bow and Arrow) should a hunt ever be indicated in the future, as further referenced in Section 411.04 (Deer Management Plan), lines 80-83.


                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1485 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Relating to the Management of Wildlife in the City."


                             Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the City of Roseville Deer Population Management Program and Policy (Attachment B) as presented.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe reviewed the process if and when a deer hunt was ever needed.  Mayor Roe noted that as stipulated in the ordinance and addressed in the Plan/Policy, any proposed hunt would need to come before the City Council for public awareness and formal action.


With Councilmember Laliberte noting how vague specific historical numbers were versus the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) loading; Mayor Roe advised that the language as adopted provided this or future City Councils the ability use whichever criteria was preferred at the time based on practical application.


                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


11.      Presentations


12.      Public Hearings


a.    Public Hearing to Consider Approving the 2016 Liquor License Renewals

At the request of Mayor Roe, and as detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Miller reviewed this annual renewal process. However, unlike past years, Mr. Miller noted that approximately one-third of the City's existing establishments had yet to turn in their paperwork, which may precipitate an additional public hearing at a future meeting.  Mr. Miller cautioned that these remaining licensees delayed this renewal process at their own peril, and for the record, noted that of the eighty-one current licenses in effect, staff was presenting fifty-two for consideration tonight based on the completion and submittal of necessary paperwork.


Mayor Roe noted that some establishments had multiple licenses as well.


As part of the City Council's consideration, Mr. Miller noted that there had been two liquor compliance failures in 2015 as addressed in the RCA; but advised that all those current liquor license establishments had met all statutory and local city code requirements, with staff in the process of completing background checks.  Based on the information submitted to-date, Mr. Miller recommended approval of those renewals listed in Attachment A to the RCA.


For those having yet to submit their paperwork, Councilmember Willmus questioned if those licenses would automatically expire the end of 2015.


Mr. Miller responded affirmatively, and advised staff that each had received follow-up notice from the city on more than one occasion, alerting that they were late submitting their paperwork.  Mr. Miller noted this was a most unusual circumstance, with all submittals received in time for last year's renewal process.


Mayor Roe asked that staff continue to follow-up with those remaining establishments.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:13 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on 2016 Liquor License Renewals; with no one appearing for or against.


14.      Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Approve/Deny 2016 Liquor License Renewals

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of 2016 liquor license renewals as presented in the RCA dated November 9, 2016 (Attachment A).


                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


12.      Public Hearings (continued)


b.            Public Hearing to Consider Century Link Cable Television Ordinance

Mayor Roe introduced the North Suburban Cable Commission (NSCC) attorney, Mr. Michael R. Bradley, with the firm of Bradley Hagen & Gullikson, LLC to make this presentation, as detailed in the RCA and attachments dated November 9, 2015. 


Attorney Michael R. Bradley, of Bradley Hagen & Gullikson, LLC

Mr. Bradley reviewed the history and process to-date for this second cable franchise application, noting that each of the nine member cities would be holding similar public hearings as part of this approval process.


Mr. Bradley noted that this franchise agreement was similar, by requirement, to that currently held by Comcast; noted that only one franchisee/operator had been operating since 1983 with this Century Link franchise the first competitive franchise to-date. 


Mr. Bradley referenced the Findings of Fact (Attachment A) recommended by the NSCC that would be adopted simultaneously with the franchise agreement if approved; the draft Cable Television Franchise Ordinance itself (Attachment B); and including the voluntary commitments negotiated with Century Link.


Mr. Bradley highlighted various aspects included as part of the franchise including reasonable upgrades and expansions needed by Century Link; five-year build-out term tied to the franchise term of five years subject to renewal depending on whether or not the build-out schedule was met; compliance with the Federal Cable Act and NSCC stipulations to avoid "cherry picking" or "red lining" by choosing wealthier areas of a community to provide service to and applicable penalties that could be imposed as necessary.


Further highlights included the State Cable Act and how it addressed franchise fees and  "PEG" commitments (Public Education and Government Access channels); area to be served; availability of sixteen access channels, more than currently provided by Comcast; upgrading of the system over time (High Definition); public service announcement capabilities; channel placement; and unique programming brought forward by the NSCC for complimentary service to all member city halls and the NSCC office for program origination to monitor video feeds, with a potential to serve additional city buildings in the future.


Mr. Bradley concluded by stating that this agreement compared similarly with that of Comcast other than the term of the agreement, indemnification provisions for this franchise that Comcast didn't currently have.


Mayor Roe added that the franchise fees went to each member city, with those member cities contributing a portion of the fee to the NSCC to manage the franchise, with the City of Roseville's current franchise fee at approximately $400,000 or more, of which approximately $100,000 to $150,000 was paid to the NSCC to fund management of operations; with the PEG fee going directly to the NSAC toward the operation of C-TV and related channel funding.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bradley defined "mosaic" as the Channel 15 government/educational access channel, that would provide one main video feed of that open channel, with a number of live screens showing fifteen other channels, and via a remote, a customer could choose whichever option they wanted to watch and when selecting it, it would come up to the full screen.


While School District 623 was mentioned, Councilmember Willmus noted that a large portion of the Roseville community was serviced by School District 621, and sought to make sure this agreement incorporated their programming as well.


Mr. Bradley acknowledged that it included them, with the City of Mounds View and the Village of St. Anthony included as member cities that would incorporate  those school districts and  their activities and programs as well.


Specific to the five-year build-out, Councilmember Etten questioned how the 15% had been arrived at for the first years of the franchise agreement, and asked for an explanation of how that percentage worked.


Mr. Bradley stated that it was ultimately a negotiated number that Century Link would not agree to a higher initial mandatory build, which was the source for considerable discussion.  While this build-out number appeared to be a fairly standard provision nationally and for Century Link, Mr. Bradley addressed how the NSCC had arrived at addressing more aggressive mandatory build-out through the acceleration language included in the franchise agreement, beginning early in 2016 and moving quarterly for Century Link to provide numbers of who is receiving their service, which Century Link was projecting at a much greater percentage than 15%.  Therefore, if Century Link is able to return to the NSCC indicating a much higher percentage being served based on market success or penetration rates, Mr. Bradley advised that then their mandatory build-out requirement increases to 75%, which would be addressed through quarterly meetings between the NSCC and Century Link.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Bradley opined that the NSCC intended to incent Century Link, since they will be the second entity entering this market currently served by an established cable provider having had no competition to-date.  Mr. Bradley further opined that Century Link may have a difficult task ahead of them under those circumstances.


In conclusion, and as a board member representing the City of Roseville on the NSCC, Mayor Roe stated that the feeling put forth by legal counsel to the NSCC was that this franchise agreement met requirements, but indemnification was available if challenged, and the agreement addressed those costs for the NSCC and member cities.


Mr. Bradley concurred with Mayor Roe.


Public Comment

Patrick Haggerty, Century Link Representative

On behalf of Century Link, Mr. Haggerty expressed their excitement to finally be at this point in the process and offering some competition in the market place, and provided a brief history of that process from his perspective.  Mr. Haggerty expressed his and the firm's respect and gratitude for the privilege of working with the NSCC and their professionalism throughout the process as they considered the value of bringing competition to their member cities and residents.


Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:39 p.m. with no one else appearing for or against.


Even though this is the statutory public hearing, Mayor Roe reviewed the next step, with the ordinance coming to the City Council for consideration and formal action at their November 16, 2016 meeting, at which time the ordinance will be considered and additional public comment heard.


As a side note related to the Comcast process, Mayor Roe noted that their franchise agreement remained under extension, in the first year of a two year extension, with franchise agreement renewal negotiations having started approximately four years ago.  Mayor Roe advised that the Comcast's intent is to now go back to the formal process (versus the informal process) laid out by federal cable laws originally begun in 2013 before the administrative law judge.  Mayor Roe advised that the proposed term for the Comcast franchise renewal was ten years rather than fifteen, with the potential for extensions as needed.  Mayor Roe advised that he would keep the City Council and public updated as things move forward.


13.      Budget Items


14.      Business Items (Action Items)


c.            Discuss 2016 Policy Priority Planning Document

City Manager Trudgeon provided an updated and revised 2016 Policy Priority Planning (PPP) document based on previous discussions and City Council directions.  Mr. Trudgeon expressed his hope that this new format provided more clarity.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that one unfilled area was in economic development, and staff was seeking direction on that matter.  Given the time of year, Mr. Trudgeon expressed hope that the document could be approved by year-end in order to move into 2016 with a one-year action plan, which could then be revisited as other initiatives may occur.


Councilmember Etten stated he really liked this format compared to the previous one especially identify who was doing the work and a timetable for when it was being accomplished.  Councilmember Etten opined this would allow everyone to track progress better.


Specific to focusing on SE Roseville (page 2 - Attachment A), Councilmember Etten noted previous discussions and presentations at the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and suggested some of those previous investments and educational efforts could be brought forward to inform City Council discussions moving forward as background material and in identifying specific issues.


Specific to the Karen SE Roseville Working Group and "Creating a SE Roseville Redevelopment Plan" (page 3), Councilmember Etten sought clarification from staff if the intent was to be more specific or more generic.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that his intent was focused on the Karen Working Group, but as he struggled in reformatting the document, he began to question whether this was a subset of the SE Roseville plan and therefore attempted to leave some room to incorporate the broader picture into the document, while remaining unsure as to how the pieces fit.


Councilmember Etten opined that the Karen community and ways to help them be more successful should be incorporated (e.g. safe education and living environments), but suggested other redevelopment goals and the scope of the Working Group may adjust to other cultures and/or needs as well.


Councilmember McGehee echoed the comments of Councilmember Etten, opining she saw the Karen community as a subset, even though there were a number of unique issues for them.  As the formal group begins to identify those unique things and goals, and as that group got more established, Councilmember McGehee suggested she could see them merging.  At this point, however, Councilmember McGehee stated that she saw them as two separate things.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that the Karen Working Group was already functioning and would remain ahead of the other process.


Specific to creating a Redevelopment Plan versus another Working Group, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern if the intent was to not retain the existing Karen-specific Working Group.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten, that it was time to consider a broader focus and group with a new redevelopment plan beyond the Karen community's interests.


Mayor Roe suggested that was the rationale in separating the "Working Group" and the "Redevelopment Plan" for SE Roseville.  Mayor Roe noted that the first thing listed under the timeline was to identify stakeholders to get it moving forward.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested factoring in the Smart Growth America report into the 2016 plan if it was available.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that he anticipated the Smart Growth information by the end of 2015, as well as identifying stakeholders and issues.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that he considered this not just reporting but engaging the community, and feeding it all into the scope of what should be undertaken: planning and implementation.


Mayor Roe asked City Manager Trudgeon to add that information into the timeline such as discussing and considering incorporating it into the work during the first quarter of 2016.  Based on his recollection of the Smart Growth America workshop, Mayor Roe noted the report talked about identifying preliminary steps and plans to go forward and identify stakeholders and participants.  Therefore, Mayor Roe further suggested adding under those responsible (other participants) East Metro Strong, the Chamber of Commerce, and accelerate Ramsey County in order to acknowledge them as participants in the report process.  Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Laliberte that something should be available from the Smart Growth America report to allow a response to that report.


City Manager Trudgeon noted Councilmember Etten's suggestion to include the previous work of the HRA, advising he would add that as a bullet point to utilize previous work in this area to help scope the work moving forward.


Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that she wanted to avoid parallel actions and make sure things were brought under one broad trajectory.


Councilmember Etten agreed with that concept; however, he supported separating the formalized Karen Working Group in SE Roseville with the broader redevelopment efforts in that area.  Councilmember Etten stated that he anticipated that connection based on who was involved in that working group and the interest of other organizations.


In the first area of the Redevelopment Plan for SE Roseville, Councilmember Etten suggested to "others" under responsible parties, area businesses in addition to the Chamber and East Metro Strong.  As an example, Councilmember Etten noted the involvement of the owner of the strip mall in that area, seeking to include those stakeholders in efforts.


Specific to the Karen Working Group, Councilmember Etten noted how informative and helpful it would be to get their report of what was going on, and by having that report by the first quarter of 2016, what had been done, what needed to be done, and where things were moving, in order to inform the community and City Council.  Councilmember Etten also noted a typographical error on page 3 of Attachment A, missing "municipalities."


Councilmember McGehee stated she continued to be struck by the of projects the City Council has signed up for, suggesting task forces might be included to utilize community expertise to get as needed information - whether businesses or residents - to alleviate that pressure.


Mayor Roe suggested task forces would come into plan for specific areas of interest moving out from the broader groups currently identified.


Councilmember Laliberte noted comments at the October 19th City Council meeting that would apply to all pages of this revised document, in adding or identifying what tools would be used to measure progress and whether or not things were on track.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested adding a column or way to incorporate those tools and measurement pieces.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten that it would be nice to have a report for touch points for each page.


City Manager Trudgeon recognized that was a great suggestion for a status report for each focus area.  Mr. Trudgeon reported that an update on the Karen Working Group could certainly be made available early in 2016.


Specific to SE Roseville Redevelopment, Mayor Roe questioned whether that goal/focus area was appropriate, or if it should include the broader topic of revitalization.  Mayor Roe noted that some things may not be redevelopment, but were part of revitalizing that part of the community and that of the neighboring communities as well.  Mayor Roe questioned if revitalization should be added to the title, or included as a specific focus of redevelopment  Also under "others," Mayor Roe suggested adding in all or most categories "businesses" and "residents."


City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the intent of the "responsible staff/commission" column was intended to identify the primary or lead city departments of commissions doing the work but was in no way intended to be an exhaustive list of everyone involved, which he anticipated would continue to evolve.


Mayor Roe suggested that once the stakeholders or participants in the process had been identified, that should be included beyond simply being identified as stakeholders.


Councilmember Laliberte further noted the need to bring those stakeholders into the conversation by not only involving them but also reporting to them, and if this document was intended to work and evolve, that needed to be part of the process.


Once those stakeholders are identified, Mayor Roe suggested some type of abbreviated measurement for each action step reported on this document, including identifying stakeholders and listing them as well.


In looking at the Housing and Redevelopment goals across the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area (pages 3 - 4, Attachment A), Councilmember Etten noted move-up housing opportunities and questioned if the Planning Commission should also be included as part of that decision-making and whether or not certain uses were allowed in that district.  Councilmember Etten noted that, under "commissions," the Finance Commission and Economic Development Authority Commissions were listed, but Planning may also be a good addition.


Mayor Roe and Councilmembers concurred with that idea.


Councilmember Willmus cautioned that the Planning Commission's statutory role needed to be considered, noting their need to stick to land use considerations, not factoring in whether or not their action may improve the number or jobs in the city.  Councilmember Willmus noted this may be appropriate before the City Council but not the Planning Commission deliberations.


Mayor Roe concurred; however, he supported the Planning Commission's involvement in the process as part of determining if and when zoning code or processes needed to be changed, allowing them to weigh in, thus his support for Councilmember Etten's suggestion to include them.  Mayor Roe noted that many of the responsible parties listed may involve some appropriate and some inappropriate areas as applicable and within their areas of expertise.  However, Mayor Roe agreed that Councilmember Willmus made a good point, the need to be clear and conscious of communicating that to the public and advisory commissions as well.


Councilmember McGehee opined that with this and the entire EDA proposed, Council power was at a higher level than now available for commercial and retail development, and the area set aside for that when the community was established.  While that was done in a very deliberate and proper regional way at that time, Councilmember McGehee further opined that it had continued to be built upon without the benefit of a community or regional traffic plan to address that build out and facilitate access to that area while keeping that traffic and local traffic from moving into residential neighborhoods.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this continued to come up from the public across the community, while other cities have policies to prevent or assist in directing that traffic to major arteries and out of residential areas.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her strong interest in pursuing such a traffic plan.


Mayor Roe agreed that this was a timely issue, and would be part of the transportation plan chapter in the upcoming comprehensive plan update over the next few years.


Regarding "propelling city-wide economic development (page 6, Attachment A), Mayor Roe suggested discussion on desired outcomes - whether in the role of City Council or EDA - on timeline items during the first quarter of 2016, such as "develop outcomes" as a starting point.


Willmus echoed that suggestion, whether meeting in work session format with a process to identify outcomes or goals being sought.  Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was not advocating for a process involving a consultant similar to that initially kicking off this process, but an in-house discussion of this body and staff to achieve productivity.


Mayor Roe noted that, as the chair of those discussions, it was sometimes easier to have a reasonably-priced facilitator as an option to allow  him to participate in the discussion outside managing the meeting itself.


Specific to the "propel" wording, Councilmember Etten suggested another term, such as "encourage" or "facilitate" or "foster."


Mayor Roe, with agreement of the City Council, suggested staff return with this document at their earliest convenience and incorporating the changes suggested tonight.


Process-wise, Mayor Roe suggested this may be appropriate as part of the annual Organizational Meeting at the start of 2016, with a potential of City Council subcommittees to work with City Manager Trudgeon on formatting, language and other issues in the process versus having a five-member editing process.  Mayor Roe asked Councilmembers to think how they wanted to move forward, but suggested it may be appropriate for a Polity Priority Planning Subcommittee to deal with the nuts and bolts of this initial document moving forward in 2016.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe suggested additional individual Councilmember thoughts be submitted to City Manager Trudgeon to synthesize them as appropriate or any needing direction from the full City Council highlighted in a future RCA if necessary.


Councilmember McGehee asked why the Information Technology, Police and Fire Departments were not included in the Infrastructure Sustainability priority (pages 7 and 8, Attachment A) since they should be involved in categorizing infrastructure conditions.  As an example, Councilmember McGehee referenced existing software used in the infrastructure database.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that all departments could be involved in each goal or focus area; however, the intent was to list the main staff people or drivers of each priority area.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the IT Department typically concentrated on software support versus hardware support, but at the suggestion of Mayor Roe, agreed they could provide expertise as to whether existing software was sufficient or if another tool may work better.


15.      Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.        Adopt Resolution Accepting Housing & Redevelopment Authority Appointments and Discuss Economic Development Authority (EDA) Process

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta briefly reviewed the roles and process in transferring RHRA powers, creation of an EDA and functions involved as detailed in the RCA dated November 9, 2015.  Mr. Bilotta noted that current RHRA Attorney Martha Ingram with Kennedy & Graven was present to answer any questions of the public or City Council.  Mr. Bilotta noted that once this was accomplished, it would essentially eliminate the RHRA as a functioning body.  Mr. Bilotta further noted the City Council would need to confirm the zero levy going forward in 2016, allowing procedures to be put in place and become part of normal business meetings from then on.


Mayor Roe asked how the transfer of functions from the HRA to an EDA would impact federal grant monies or if they could be transferred to the EDA.


Attorney Martha Ingram, Kennedy & Graven

Ms. Ingram confirmed with Mr. Bilotta that all functions of the HRA could be transferred to the EDA including federal functions.


Regarding Mayor Roe's question about retaining the HRA to facilitate that federal obligation, Ms. Ingram responded that if the EDA is established, the HRA would basically die by attrition with no further action; while Councilmembers will still be HRA members, and as those existing Councilmembers no longer run  for office or are not re-elected, with no more HRA appointments, the membership in the HRA would eventually decrease to nothing.  Meanwhile, Ms. Ingram advised there was no particular point in having an HRA meeting as it no longer had powers since those HRA powers had been granted to the EDA.  Ms. Ingram opined this was the more cautious and conservative approach to let the HRA wither by attrition.


Councilmember Laliberte asked if the HRA needed to retain a contract for City staff to serve the HRA functions.  


Mr. Bilotta advised that staff's intent and recommendation to the City Council is not to bring that forward until the procedural functions moving from two separate boards and two separate meetings are interconnected with the City Council, breaking out their role as an EDA to take steps as needed in that role.  As part of that, Mr. Bilotta reported that the EDA will function to some extent as other funds already established by the City Council through the EDA budget (e.g. Neighborhood Enhancement Program) funding on the EDA side.  Mr. Bilotta stated that he anticipated single or periodic transfer of funds as needed and for continued operations, with everyone remaining as city staff.  As suggested in the RCA, Mr. Bilotta noted staff's recommendation for a special planning program next year, which could be done by the City Council in their role as Councilmembers or as an EDA to direct staff what they wanted them to work on and brought forward as applicable.


Councilmember Laliberte opined she was anticipating a number of housekeeping items needing done once or if the EDA is established, and asked if a meeting would be scheduled to take care of those things for staff.


City Manager Trudgeon and Mr. Bilotta confirmed that there were a number of informational pieces that would come forward; and as staff reviews them, it would identify those items for staff level or those needing consideration and/or action by the City Council.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that some of the informational items may be interesting or helpful to the City Council, whether on a monthly or quarterly basis, and staff would seek the City Council's input on the value of that information moving forward.


As part of that housekeeping, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to review programs still useful, as well as any that should be discontinued or were redundant of other programs offered by other agencies (e.g. Ramsey County) and re-prioritize those items.


Community Development Director Bilotta advised that as part of the first quarter process or earlier, since most members of the City Council had not served on the HRA board, staff would provide a report on where we're at, the various programs and their advantages and disadvantages, and proposed changes recommended by staff.  Mr. Bilotta advised that this would also be incorporated with or in addition to the City Council's policy priority planning document and work to identify some of those programs that would direct some of the PPP goals.  Mr. Bilotta clarified that the first picture the City Council would receive would serve as an educational perspective, allowing them to direct staff what to pursue or eliminate going forward.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11268 (Revised Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving Mayor's Appointment of the Roseville City Council to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville."

                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None. 


16.   City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed upcoming preliminary agendas, noting that there remained only three more meetings before year-end.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon provided additional detail on the potential November 16th agenda item for purchase of bus shelters.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, from his understanding, the current owner of the bus shelters in Roseville were getting out of that business and were proposing to remove them from the City.  Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon advised staff was seeking direction from the City Council as to their preferred course of action for possible purchase/maintenance of the shelters, with cost estimates being prepared by Public Works Director Culver.

17.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

As noted in her previous comments, Councilmember McGehee addressed her interest in an overall traffic plan, based on issues brought to her attention related to single-family rental housing in suburbs and how extensive it was becoming, as well as problematic (e.g. University of Northwestern College) parking in residential neighborhoods as some of those homes turned into rentals.  Councilmember McGehee also requested discussion related to currently low interest rates and impacts on city programs and reserve funds; with a major portion of the city's demographics living on fixed incomes and not scheduled for COLA increases in 2016 for social security benefits.  Councilmember McGehee suggested each of these topics should be part of a general discussion going forward into formation of the Economic Development Authority and next year's planning efforts.


Related to single-family rentals, Councilmember Willmus referenced a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case out of Winona and the ability to identify geographic areas in the community in which to impose restrictions for single-family rentals.  Councilmember Willmus suggested that discussion and the information previously provided to staff be included as part of that rental housing review as well.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the  City of Brooklyn Park had put a moratorium in place in response.


Mayor Roe questioned the structure of those discussions, suggesting staff provide an update on single-family housing turning into rentals.  However, Mayor Roe opined that interest rates could be incorporated into the 2016 budget process and discussions related to and impacting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and infrastructure funding, as well as how it relates to residents and ties into tax rates as well.


Councilmember McGehee opined that traffic impacts were currently and obviously tied into Rosedale Center at this time.  However, Councilmember McGehee further opined that as the community continues to develop even while currently hosting a major area of the Twin Cities' regional retail development, residents also needed to continue living here and get around their own community.


18.      Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.

              Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.